From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

746 minutes?

Is the stated length really correct? If so that would make this film over 12 hours in length, surpassing even Paint Drying (which, no doubt, has far more artistic value than this film).

I get that a lot of far-rightists are NEET-types who have _way_ too much free time on their hands (and thus would be more willing to make, and/or watch, overly-long propaganda pieces). But even so, 746 minutes seems awfully excessive. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:CEB1 ( talk) 04:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply

IMDb says 12 hours, 26 minutes. A few other non-RSs mention that it's "12 hours" and a "ten-part web series", so as dubious as it sounds, the length appears to be accurate. Schazjmd  (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply


No Neutral

This article should be marked as no neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.10.142.196 ( talk) 13:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

That's not a thing. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 23:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Apparently it is.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Noticerwhonotices ( talk) 14:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

"Neutral point of view" is. "No neutral" isn't. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 22:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Noticerwhonotices has been blocked per WP:NONAZIS. Isi96 ( talk) 22:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

The article only quotes Biased Sources

The article relies on quotes from Biased sources to "Prove" its point. 222.108.156.194 ( talk) 00:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, Wikipedia is biased against bullshit conspiracy theories and fraudulent pseudohistory. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 00:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
🫵😭 148.69.23.76 ( talk) 17:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Welp, yup. That's how English Wikipedia work. RamanaEmiliz ( talk) 16:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Number of the source out of order

Hi!

i'm fairly new on this so it may be nothing, but the sources appear to me as out of order, for example at the beginning going from 2 to 3 to 11. It seems to be the result of previous editing and sentence deletion, but it could be fixed and the article would look nicer. ZenZeppelin ( talk) 14:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ ZenZeppelin That's because there's a bundled citation in the lead. Isi96 ( talk) 14:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

746 minutes?

Is the stated length really correct? If so that would make this film over 12 hours in length, surpassing even Paint Drying (which, no doubt, has far more artistic value than this film).

I get that a lot of far-rightists are NEET-types who have _way_ too much free time on their hands (and thus would be more willing to make, and/or watch, overly-long propaganda pieces). But even so, 746 minutes seems awfully excessive. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:CEB1 ( talk) 04:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply

IMDb says 12 hours, 26 minutes. A few other non-RSs mention that it's "12 hours" and a "ten-part web series", so as dubious as it sounds, the length appears to be accurate. Schazjmd  (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply


No Neutral

This article should be marked as no neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.10.142.196 ( talk) 13:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

That's not a thing. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 23:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Apparently it is.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Noticerwhonotices ( talk) 14:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

"Neutral point of view" is. "No neutral" isn't. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 22:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Noticerwhonotices has been blocked per WP:NONAZIS. Isi96 ( talk) 22:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

The article only quotes Biased Sources

The article relies on quotes from Biased sources to "Prove" its point. 222.108.156.194 ( talk) 00:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, Wikipedia is biased against bullshit conspiracy theories and fraudulent pseudohistory. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 00:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
🫵😭 148.69.23.76 ( talk) 17:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Welp, yup. That's how English Wikipedia work. RamanaEmiliz ( talk) 16:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Number of the source out of order

Hi!

i'm fairly new on this so it may be nothing, but the sources appear to me as out of order, for example at the beginning going from 2 to 3 to 11. It seems to be the result of previous editing and sentence deletion, but it could be fixed and the article would look nicer. ZenZeppelin ( talk) 14:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ ZenZeppelin That's because there's a bundled citation in the lead. Isi96 ( talk) 14:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook